Loss of rights and other "feel good" BS!

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loaded

member
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
84
Let's not forget that guns aren't the only agenda of the "left wing, I grew up on MTV and Barney the purple dinasaur, kumbaya" nit wits.

They have attacked (and succeeded in some cases) --

1. The cigarette industry -- restaurants and bars that cannot have smoking in them.

2. Not allowing the game of "tag" allowed to be played on some playgrounds because it might make the one that is "it" feel hurt and worthless!

3. Pledge of Allegience removed from schools.

4. Prayer removed from school (unles you're a muslim, then it's ok).

5. No cell phone usage while driving!

6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.

And countless other things in the name of destroying the American Culture and Constitution. And who is responsible for these actions? Million Moms, Hollywood, Liberals, Liberal media, today's schools, some politicians, etc.

People.... It's time we put an end to this and reclaim our country for what it was built upon. Lest America ends up like Mexifornia!!! Socialism / Liberalism spreads like a cancer. First California, then...?????
 
Loaded, not all of these things are bad...

1. Cigarettes - hey, I'm a smoker, but I have many friends and acquaintances who detest the smell of smoke, and I respect their right to a smoke-free environment. If I want to smoke when I'm with them, I excuse myself and go outside for a few minutes. I have no problem with that.

2. "Tag" - yeah, that one sucks...

3. Pledge of Allegiance - ditto. If our Congress sees fit to make it a national "standard", our schools should be adopting it. No argument here.

4. Prayer in schools - well, I'm a pastor, and I object to being "spiritually censored" in schools: but I also agree that others should not be forced to join in my prayer. I'd compromise here, and go for voluntary assemblies of like-minded folks to pray together, with others excused from participation.

5. No cell phone usage while driving - I largely agree with this (I've seen too many accidents and near-accidents), but would like to see exclusions allowing for hands-free kits.

6. Same sex marriage - well, to me, marriage is a religious union, not a civil one. If a religion doesn't approve of same-sex marriage (as mine doesn't), it's free to refuse to allow or recognize such marriages. If the state wants to offer non-religious "civil union" status to such unions, that's for the state to decide (or rather, for the people to decide, and the state to implement according to the peoples' wishes).

Any other ideas?
 
>Prayer in schools - well, I'm a pastor, and I object to being "spiritually censored" in schools: but I also agree that others should not be forced to join in my prayer.

But you are forced to pay for the school, that teaches the eco-doom religion instead of yours. This is the basic issue; there is no way to have schools financed by income confiscation that does not tread on your religious beliefs.

I'm not a pastor, nor do I play one on TV. But I am appalled that so many pastors cave in to convenience and convince themselves that supporting the state religion is their job. (This isn't aimed at Preacherman, and certainly voluntary asssemblies make more sense than prohibition of all but the State's religion).
 
5. No cell phone usage while driving - I largely agree with this (I've seen too many accidents and near-accidents), but would like to see exclusions allowing for hands-free kits.


Preacher - Not to beat up on you but, What's next from Big brother while driving? No radio tuning? No eating? No talking to rear passengers? No looking around at the scenery? No looking down at your gauges? The question is.... WHEN WILL IT STOP?????

I'm tired of "feel good" groups constantly wanting to protect me from me!!!
 
"I'm tired of "feel good" groups constantly wanting to protect me from me!!!"

Cell phone usage bans are to protect me from you, not you from yourself.

I have been run off the road several times by cell phone users, and seen them go through stop signs several more times. If banning eating and changing CDS is next, that's ok with me, too. The cell phone problem is about to get much worse as text messaging and interent access become more common, because those require much more attention than talking.

And for the pastor, hands free units have been shown to be no safer. The problem is lack of concentration on the main task, driving. Driving safely requires more concentration than most people seem willing to give it.
 
Last edited:
Smoking

1. The cigarette industry -- restaurants and bars that cannot have smoking in them.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less for the cigarette industry, and I do everything I can to avoid the smell of second hand smoke, but the government has no business telling a private property owners that they are not allowed to set their own rules on their own property as it pertains to an activity that is perfectly legal to do on your own front porch. If second hand smoke is truely dangerous (I am dubious), then EDUCATE people and allow them to make their own choices. If the true goal was health, then cigarettes would be outlawed. This is nothing more than a group of people who want to control other people by force of law. And it stinks. Way more than the disgusting smell of cigarette smoke.
 
Okie --

When I pass you in my car I'll be sure to wave to you as I stuff another cheeseburger into my mouth, grab some fries, sip my drink, tune in another radio station, turn to talk to my passengers, answer my cell phone, look in my mirrors, shift gears, use my turn signal, check my on board navigation system, adjust my air conditioning, and get on with the act of being a responsible driver and getting to where I'm headed.
 
I have been run off the road several times by cell phone users, and seen them go through stop signs several more times.
Click to expand...

You're making the (incorrect) assumption that banning cell phones would turn these people into responsible drivers.
 
I don't know. I've heard that driving while talking on a cell phone is statistically more dangerous than driving drunk, but I don't have any links to articles or studies that back that up.
 
Loaded, the problem is that the Socialist crowd regards the effort as a full time job. They work together on a daily basis. They go into lines of work which inherently further their aims: The media, government agencies, and staffs of elected officials.

Conservatives, generally, go vote and go home and then bitch.

Art
 
5. No cell phone usage while driving - I largely agree with this (I've seen too many accidents and near-accidents), but would like to see exclusions allowing for hands-free kits.
Click to expand...


Well, this is OT, and I was going to PM Preacherman on this. Then I read further and saw it being hammered, so here goes:


I'm in the business. I engineer cellphone networks. Got my start in '84, installing car phones. That's almost as far back as it gets, folks - the first commercial networks launched in '84. So I've been around this issue for a while.

I've gone from scorning the "cellphones make bad drivers" crowd as a bunch of chicken littles to realizing that they are partially right. There ARE a bunch of people out there who can't talk and drive. I'm sure those folks can't talk and walk very well, either, but that's small comfort when you're behind one of them on the road.

In The Beginning, car phones were very expensive and only people who had:

A: The money, and

B: The need,

bought thte things. Very few were for status in those early days. (Well, except for the Hollyweird crowd.) They were high end exces and salesmen, and frankly, they tended to be more capable, more intelligent than the avereage Joe.

Now every soccer mom and teeny bopper is running down the road with a phone screwed in their ear. Naturally, a good percentage of these folks are bad drivers/airheads to start with, and the phone does NOT imporove matters.

The study that was referred to was done in Toronto and it concluded that cellphone usage was EQUIVALENT to being drunk. (Not WORSE.) But it was a poorly conducted study that didn't control for peopel just being stupid, so we don't know how cellphone usage affects different people. But one very important point that the study DID show was that it is NOT the act of dialing or receiving the call that causes the problem - it is the converstation ITSELF. IWO, hands free devices don't help at all.

But passing laws requireing them DOES make for an easy, feel-good target for polkiticians.

So, yes, I do think there's a problem. But as ususal, passing a law is not the best way to solve it. I like what Huntington Beach, California, did. THey passed a law that said if you have an accident, and it is shown that you were distracted by WHATEVER (cell phone, CD player, kid in back seat) then you are AT FAULT and will be cited.

Hmmm. No prior restraint, just hold people accountable for bad results of their choice.

Yeah, I can live with that.


And I apologize for the sloppy typing - no timer to chell speck righ tnow!)
 
Let's not forget that guns aren't the only agenda of the "left wing

They only have one agenda- limiting freedom by slowly eliminating individuality and the ability of citizens to act independently and responsibly.

Name me one thing they favor that does not fit that agenda?:cuss:
 
You forget the worst thing. Moronic warning labels...I lay the blame for these on the lawyers and not the liberals per se.

Imagine you are knee deep in some domestic chore, perhaps regluing the broken PVC water line you broke because the moron you bought the house from had an unmarked spigot hidden in the weeds which you ran over with the lawnmower.

Your trifocals are fogged from the heat and you can barely see. You finish digging the hole, exposing the pipes, cut the pipes to length and wipe the mud off the new fittings and reach for that little can of glue.

DAMNED THING HAS NO DIRECTIONS JUST WHITE PRINT ON PURPLE BACKGROUND WARNING YOU THE FRIGGING STATE OF KALIFORNICA HAS FOUND THE STUFF TO CAUSE CANCER. So you turn over to the other side of the can looking for directions so you won't have to walk 100 yards to the house to fish out the outer childproof box from the garbage. What do you see? THE SAME FRIGGING WARNINGS IN SPANISH!!!
:banghead:

1. The cigarette industry -- restaurants and bars that cannot have smoking in them.
Click to expand...
You're wrong about this one. Cigarettes are more addicting than heroine and nicotine is more poisonous than cocaine and the antismoking sentiment cuts right across party lines.

You'd better thank the liberals and their namby pamby ways, because if conservative antismoking activists like me were in charge we'd put a bounty on tobacco dealers. :D
 
>Cigarettes are more addicting than heroine and nicotine is more poisonous than cocaine

And everyone has known this for decades. What does that have to do with telling someone else what to do with their own bloodstream? Do you think General Washington would have let anti-smoking zealots tell him he couldn't grow tobacco?

I'm not saying I understand people that smoke, because I don't. But on their own property it's just not my business... we might also note that without the BATF and the DEA there would be safe alternative drugs available that would have the stimulus-blocking effect the nicotine addicts like.
 
in most states eating, cell phone use, tuning the radio etc,etc while driving has been illegal for years its called failure to devote full attention to driving. saddlebum
 
Cigarettes are more addicting than heroine and nicotine is more poisonous than cocaine
Click to expand...

Then support a law to outlaw smoking, if you believe that will work. But until smoking is an illegal activity, the government has no right telling property owners whether they can allow it on their premises or not.
 
Seems to me that it's reasonable for a city or state government to request or require food-service establishments to provide a smoke-free area. As to totally smokeless, that should remain the owner's decision.

If the owner of some store doesn't want anybody to smoke inside, fine with me. Governments shouldn't be telling a store owner that customers, employees or he cannot smoke inside the building.

Quartus' example of the Huntington Beach viewpoint strikes me at the appropriate path to take: A person is responsible for the consequences of his decisions and actions. This would apply not only to cell phone usage, but to issues of helmets and seat belts as well. You could include responsibility for theft of guns from unlocked cars or houses, too.

Art
 
"You're making the (incorrect) assumption that banning cell phones would turn these people into responsible drivers."

No, I'm not. People are not divided into two categories, responsible and irresponsible, which is what your comment assumes. We all exist on a scale that goes from totally unsafe to very safe, and where we are on the scale depends on our condition, and road conditions, the other drivers, and so on. Cell phones move everyone further toward the unsafe side of the scale.
 
Hello Okie

Owning a guitar doesn't make me a musician, no more than owning a gun makes me a shoot em up wanna be criminal.

Owning my cell phone and driving responsible and being able to talk on the phone at the same time is something I can do well. And for you to say EVERYONE moves further to the unsafe side of driving because they use a cell phone is ludicrous.
 
#3 and #4 should be up to the student, not the goverment or school.

#6 why should the goverment stop people from getting married??? Why should the goverment force people to do things, or not to do things when they are not hurting others?

I am with telomerase as far as smoking goes.

I am also against cell phone laws, except maybe an increased fine for acidents while distracted.

Smoking should be up to the individual or property owner.
 
I notice some libbies jumped on my antismoking statements but nobody commented on warning labels. I thought for sure somebody would gripe about the 300 word warning stamped onto their new rifle. :rolleyes:
 
MeekandMild, those labels really annoy me too. My snowmobile had a sticker reminding me not to stick my head inside the track while the track was spinning. The manuals for every thing I own with an engine could be cut down to 60% of their length, if they did not have to remind people of every single obvious danger. Such dangers as gasoline being flammable, the vehicle not stopping without brakes, or that cruise control is not auto pilot. I also hate how the normal manuals do not tell you how to do anything more complex than set the clock, or fill the tank because manufactures fear liability.
 
Meek and Mild,

You didn't wait long enough for a reply. I was out in the $%&# yard trying to fix the *^&$% )%$#@ pipe I ran over with my mower and came in the house to wipe the sweat off my trifocals and get a glass of water to re hydrate myself from the cursing, stomping and pitching of the $$%^#^& can of glue into the #@$%%^ lake after which I had to go to the hardware store to buy another can of glue AND a piece of pvc. The directions to the glue were in english on the box the glue came in, which I found after I threw the glue in the lake and drove to the hardware store.
#%#$^@^%#$%$ (Sorry Preacherman.)

:scrutiny: grampster

PS what Blackhawk says (as usual)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

7
  • Locked
(PA) Commentary on Specter (R-INO)
Replies
5
Views
426
USAFNoDAk
U
9
  • Locked
PA - VOTERS (land of apathy)
Replies
22
Views
787
SodaPop
S
G
  • Locked
That's not a court, it's a junta! A.Coulter
Replies
10
Views
933
Brett Bellmore
B
K
  • Locked
My Boys Like Shootouts. What's Wrong With That? (WashPost)
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
Nightcrawler
N
hso
  • Locked
Never a good idea to start with an easily refuted lie.
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
4K
rust collector
R
Back
Top